Click the link. This is why we should be modifying some auto fuel STC's to make ethanol legal.

http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php?to ... n#msg18969

I don't guess I understand what this is supposed to prove, all this shows is that an electrical armiture stayed cleaner in alchahol than in gas, what does that have to do with the fact that alchahol holds water, attacks and destroys the older rubber compounds, can attack and destroy some aluminum and other alloys and procuces far less power than gas?

shorton wrote:I don't guess I understand what this is supposed to prove, all this shows is that an electrical armiture stayed cleaner in alchahol than in gas, what does that have to do with the fact that alchahol holds water, attacks and destroys the older rubber compounds, can attack and destroy some aluminum and other alloys and procuces far less power than gas?

My questions too, and then some Reports this season from boat mechanics is that they are seeing a lot of corroded fuel injectors already. On Lake Pend Oreille, disabled boats (meaning; THE ENGINE QUIT RUNNING ) much higher than in the past. However, maybe 180's are not injected so hopefully it won't cause those kinds of issues for Marty.

I wonder what it will take to make folks realize that EISA 2007 is a fraud perpetrated on the American people and our way of life?

This is important enough to post twice. I need to give this info to the ethanol debate so it can continue. There is a second generation ethanol derivative based fuel that contains no ethanol itself but has been developed and tested by a company called Swift Fuels and partnered in testing with Teledyne Continental. Very promising, and now I need to say thank you to all who supported ethanol through its infancy so this could be developed as cellulosic second generation renewable avgas and it can be made from feed stock that is not food based. But until FAA standards are set we will need some 100LL and some 93 octane unleaded for our buzzards. Even Big Food should like this.
Happy 4th to all
dirtstrip
https://secure5.webfirst.com/ABS/News/?id=473
dirtstrip

Posts: 3
Joined: Fri Jun 19, 2009 10:39 pm
Location: Conde, SD

180Marty wrote:Click the link. This is why we should be modifying some auto fuel STC's to make ethanol legal.

http://e85vehicles.com/e85/index.php?to ... n#msg18969

This is why there won't be any modifications for auto fuel STCs, click on this link and scroll down to Section 11 on page 10:

http://www.aviationfuel.org/faqs/ethanol_blends.pdf

What is really ironic is this has been known since the 1930s:

http://www.eaa.org/experimenter/article ... xtures.pdf

dirtstrip wrote:... There is a second generation ethanol derivative based fuel that contains no ethanol itself but has been developed and tested by a company called Swift Fuels and partnered in testing with Teledyne Continental.

Go to the Swift Fuels web site and read it very carefully: http://www.swiftenterprises.net/Swift%20Fuel.html They are adamant that their fuel process has absolutely nothing to do with ethanol and is NOT a second generation ethanol derivative.

Also, they are not partnering with Teledyne Continental. All of their Swift Fuels testing has been at the FAA fuels research center. Teledyne Continental is testing 100 LL w/o lead which is known as 94 U/L, which is in the ASTM process of being defined. Who knows how long that will take but at least the Department of Defense is behind it because they need it for their Rotax 914 powered drones. Hope they get it done before TEL and unleaded premium mogas disappear, but don't hold your breath.

Very promising, and now I need to say thank you to all who supported ethanol through its infancy so this could be developed as cellulosic second generation renewable avgas and it can be made from feed stock that is not food based. But until FAA standards are set we will need some 100LL and some 93 octane unleaded for our buzzards. Even Big Food should like this.

Swift fuels is not cellulosic, I believe they make it clear that it is sorghum. The standards for aviation fuel do not come from FAA, they come from ASTM and as far as I know, Swift Fuels has not even applied to ASTM for a spec, probably because they don't have a clue what it will be when and if large scale commercial production can be achieved.

1593Y, I met you at Oshkosh 2 years ago when Joe Norris was talking about the future of avgas. The Swift fuel guy was there also after Joe's talk. I believe they do use an ethanol plant to make their fuel by doing something different. Also, how many years does it take for the fuel system to fail if using 10% ethanol? I,m curious.Here is a quote about Swift fuel. It could be considered cellulosic depending on feedstock.

The company is betting that its renewable general aviation fuel, made from landfill waste, sorghum, algae and wood chips, among other feedstocks, will provide one small solution to America’s big energy crisis.

180Marty wrote:1593Y, I met you at Oshkosh 2 years ago when Joe Norris was talking about the future of avgas.

Time seems to fly when you are having fun. It was actually last year. I think that is the first time Swift-Fuels was at OSH. It was the first time I have been to OSH in a while.

The Swift fuel guy was there also after Joe's talk. I believe they do use an ethanol plant to make their fuel by doing something different.

They said they were looking at buying a bankrupt ethanol plant because they could get a lot of infrastructure cheap, but they said over and over that their process is not an ethanol process although there is a fermenting step. They indicated that they were going to have to make many modifications. As far as I know, the last rumor I heard is that they were way behind schedule on buying a plant for starting to try to reproduce a commercial scale production facility, just like the cellulosic ethanol people. You notice that their web site gives little information on anything.

Also, how many years does it take for the fuel system to fail if using 10% ethanol?

I don't understand your question. The fuel system of what? In some cars, especially made before 1982 it can be instantly, same with an old boat especially if it has a fiber glass tank. If it is an ordinary airplane there is no data, especially if it has a TC because it is illegal to fly a TC'd airplane with E10.

I,m curious.Here is a quote about Swift fuel. It could be considered cellulosic depending on feedstock.

The company is betting that its renewable general aviation fuel, made from landfill waste, sorghum, algae and wood chips, among other feedstocks, will provide one small solution to America’s big energy crisis.

It would be cellulosic if the initial feedstock were wood chips or something similar, but they were very adamant that in order to make cost targets that they were going to use sorghum.

I don't understand your question. The fuel system of what?

My 180 Cessna that has original fuel lines and the newest bladder 1978 vintage.

This is the ethanol background science that Swift fuel uses. Straight from the inventor John Zuilkowski.

http://www.avweb.com/podcast/podcast/Au ... 843-1.html

Happy Independence Day
dirtstrip

They are adamant that their fuel process has absolutely nothing to do with ethanol and is NOT a second generation ethanol derivative.

I just listened to the podcast and heard ethanol is the building block of Swift Fuel. I wonder if they are knocking the oxygen off and adding some more carbon and hydrogen.

TCM, Hawker Beech Corporation partners with Swift fuel for testing and demonstration flights.

MOBILE, AL – Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. (TCM), in collaboration with Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) and Swift Enterprises, announced the successful first test flight of a certified aircraft using Swift Fuel as the exclusive fuel source. Engineering teams had already completed hundreds of hours of laboratory testing and test cell trials used to simulate various operational conditions.
"The Swift Fuel test flight occurred just two weeks after TCM successfully flew on 94UL. Continental Motors is committed to developing viable alternative fuel sources that are environmentally friendly, and economically feasible," says Rhett Ross, president of Teledyne Continental Motors. "TCM has clearly established a leadership role in the important mission to develop alternative aviation fuels that are affordable, safe, and renewable. We'll continue to leverage our engineering resources and strategic alliances to find a workable alternative to 100LL for piston aircraft operators."
Swift Fuel shows promise as a viable alternative for 100LL aviation gasoline. Unlike ethanol-based fuel alternatives, Swift Fuel contains no ethanol so there is no risk of damage to engine seals and gaskets or fuel bladders. Additionally, Swift Fuel contains no water and absorbs no water so the risk of ice crystals forming at altitude or supporting fuel system clogging microorganisms is mitigated.
"The basis of developing the ideal replacement for 100LL began with a plan to meet the ASTM D-910 specification for fuel by using a non-food renewable resource," says John Ziulkowski, Vice President of Renewable Fuels for Swift Enterprises.
"This is another big step in our sustainability initiative and technology leadership at HBC," says Ed Petkus, HBC vice president, Product Development and Engineering. "It is also something that will delight general aviation pilots. Working with TCM and Swift Enterprises exemplifies the leadership of our companies and our commitment to supporting the technologies necessary to find an alternative to 100LL. I am confident our customers and the entire aviation industry will benefit from our efforts."
The demonstration flight, performed by TCM pilot and engineer Phillip Grice and engine performance analyst Tim Kenney, tested all aspects of flight including takeoff, climb, maximum power cruise, low power cruise, descent, and landing.

dirtstrip

dirtstrip wrote:TCM, Hawker Beech Corporation partners with Swift fuel for testing and demonstration flights.

MOBILE, AL – Teledyne Continental Motors Inc. (TCM), in collaboration with Hawker Beechcraft Corporation (HBC) and Swift Enterprises, announced the successful first test flight of a certified aircraft using Swift Fuel as the exclusive fuel source. Engineering teams had already completed hundreds of hours of laboratory testing and test cell trials used to simulate various operational conditions.
"The Swift Fuel test flight occurred just two weeks after TCM successfully flew on 94UL.

I stand corrected on TCM and Swift Ent. I had seen the press release for the 94UL tests, they made a big deal about it, but not the Swift-Fuels. The only Swift-Fuels testing I had seen was the FAA tests.

"The basis of developing the ideal replacement for 100LL began with a plan to meet the ASTM D-910 specification for fuel by using a non-food renewable resource," says John Ziulkowski, Vice President of Renewable Fuels for Swift Enterprises. ..."

As I understand it, this is not going to be possible. The Department of Defense went to ASTM and asked for a tweak of ASTM D-910 to remove the lead resulting in 94UL. ASTM said it was impossible. D-910 requires "some amount" of lead. So ASTM is now working on two unleaded standards:

http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK21609.htm

and

http://www.astm.org/DATABASE.CART/WORKITEMS/WK24097.htm which is specifically the 94 UL spec.

I don't know where Swift-Fuels is going to fall, since it is definitely not 94UL.

Frederick Cornforth is shepherding both of these specs through ASTM and gave a talk at Sun N Fun, so hopefully he will be at OSH.

Swift fuel is not the only unleaded avgas currently being produced. Sweden has an unleaded avgas replacement for 100LL that meets that the ASTM D-910 spec and has been in use by their Air Force since 1981 and before unleaded autogas was available. It is commercially available and used 25 airports in the country but pilots by their conservative nature are slow to pick up on something new.

http://www.vintagebonanza.com/Fuel_UL-91-96.htm

Question: Is lead really a requirement of the spec. or not. The specs I read on BP and Shell 100 LL avgas list only the max limit of lead contained in the fuel but not the minimum. It may be that some lead must be there to qualify under the spec but the Swedish product has such small a quantity as only to meet the requirement of its presence under the D-910 spec.

dirtstrip wrote:Swift fuel is not the only unleaded avgas currently being produced. Sweden has an unleaded avgas replacement for 100LL that meets that the ASTM D-910 spec and has been in use by their Air Force since 1981 and before unleaded autogas was available. It is commercially available and used 25 airports in the country but pilots by their conservative nature are slow to pick up on something new.

http://www.vintagebonanza.com/Fuel_UL-91-96.htm

It is not a replacement for 100 LL, it is only 91/96 octane. It is not 100/115, which a lot of big bore engines have to have. And it is essentially D-910 petroleum based gasoline without lead, not a renewable fuel created from biomass that was turned into some of the key hydrocarbons that are in avgas which is what Swift-Fuel claims there product is. And Swift-Fuel claims their product is essentially a drop in replacement for 100/115 avgas.

It isn't the pilots that are conservative. It is the FBOs not wanting to have more than one grade of gas. We used to have four grades of avgas when I started flying and many FBOs had three of those grades on the airport, 80/87, 91/96 and 100/115. On a lot of airports the 80/87 tank became the Jet-A tank and the 100/115 became 100 LL and since it has the same amount of lead as 91/96, no problem for most airplanes except the low compression engines that really don't run on gasoline with 4 times as much lead as they were designed for. That is why EAA got into the mogas STC process.

Question: Is lead really a requirement of the spec. or not. The specs I read on BP and Shell 100 LL avgas list only the max limit of lead contained in the fuel but not the minimum. It may be that some lead must be there to qualify under the spec but the Swedish product has such small a quantity as only to meet the requirement of its presence under the D-910 spec.

According to Earl Lawrence the fuels guru and overseer of the EAA STCs, ASTM D-910 has a lead requirement and that is why the Department of Defense couldn't get an unleaded avgas spec under D-910 and had to go to ASTM for a new spec. Hjelmco admits that they put an insignificant amount of lead into the gas to make it D-910 compliant for 91/96 avgas but it is essentially unleaded fuel. The max limit on 100 LL is the 2gm / gallon which used to be the spec for 91/96 avgas, and you are right it is a max, but there is a minimum and the objective now is to make unleaded avgas because TEL is going away. What the US will end up with is a 94 UL (which will be about 91/98) spec and my guess is Hjelmco will immediately seize on it, remove the minuscule amount of lead in their product an carry on. So far noone has found a way to make 100/115 unleaded petroleum based product that would be commercially viable, i.e. it would be $10+ / gallon, but then again there are a lot of people I hear that say the Swift-Fuel product won't come anywhere close to their cost target.

So we wait and see. Nobody knows how long the process will take for either Swift-Fuel or ASTM. Meanwhile TEL may disappear tomorrow and it appears that ethanol free premium unleaded gasoline may disappear too. Hard to say what we will put in our aircraft then.

Hard to say what we will put in our aircraft then.

It is very sad that paperwork is so much more important than reality in our society. Isn't it?

This fuel thing is going to get ugly.. NASCAR has been running unleaded for 18 months and not one issue. The fix for planes is not a hard obsticle to over come from the engine standpoint. It's the friggin paperwork... You would think the tens of thousands of auto gas stc's could adapt this http://www.nascar.com/2006/news/headlin ... index.html.

and fulfill their obligation. Thank god for experimental planes.. we can try anything... On a side note, I am currently running premium auto fuel from Smiths grocery store, delievered by Flying J. last batch tested 12% ethanol, Flew it up to 17,500 msl and not a hint of vaporlock or detonation... So. It can be done..............................
YMMV.

Ben.
www.haaspowerair.com

It might be time to decide what we want in the lead fuel debate. If a Swedish fuel exists that meets the ASTM D-910 standard but is not seeming to take off, I don't think it's about meeting the standard anymore. Maybe it just can't gain the same level of acceptance as long as there is 100LL to compete with because darned few people want to be first to change. Obviously there can't be that many planes that can't stand a drop of 4 points in octane. It may just be time to pull life support on the 100LL and see if that "intermediate blend" will fly. I bet it does and I bet the bureaucrats take a kicking until the regs get changed and Swift gets some help to fight its way out of the paper bag they are in.
Lock me up, but I know one thing for sure, if another 30 year exemption is made for leaded fuel Textron and TCM will drop their testing and just keep on keeping on, Swift will die off for lack of investment (some will call that a victory), and 29 years from now we can have this same debate.

Stol wrote:This fuel thing is going to get ugly.. NASCAR has been running unleaded for 18 months and not one issue. The fix for planes is not a hard obsticle to over come from the engine standpoint. It's the friggin paperwork... You would think the tens of thousands of auto gas stc's could adapt this http://www.nascar.com/2006/news/headlin ... index.html.

EAA, Cessna and Petersen looked at STC for ethanol blended gasoline and all came to the same conclusion, there is no economically justifiable way to do it. You can make 100 octane unleaded gasoline but not economically.

>... On a side note, I am currently running premium auto fuel from Smiths grocery store, delievered by Flying J. last batch tested 12% ethanol, Flew it up to 17,500 msl and not a hint of vaporlock or detonation... So. It can be done........

One person, doing one test, on one day doesn't prove anything, except perhaps you were lucky. And if your tester is accurate the fuel you bought is illegal to deliver into any car except a flex-fuel vehicle.

dirtstrip wrote:>... If a Swedish fuel exists that meets the ASTM D-910 standard but is not seeming to take off, I don't think it's about meeting the standard anymore. Maybe it just can't gain the same level of acceptance as long as there is 100LL to compete with because darned few people want to be first to change. Obviously there can't be that many planes that can't stand a drop of 4 points in octane.

AOPA will tell you, as Phil Boyer told me: "There will only be one avgas and it will be whatever replaces 100 LL." The public argument of AOPA is that 70% of G/A airplanes can use unleaded auto fuel by the STC process, but they only use 30% of the gasoline used in G/A, 30% of the airplanes have to have 100 LL but they use 70% of the gasoline used by G/A. Realize that G/A uses less than 300 million gallons of gasoline a year, whereas autos use about 136 billion gallons of gasoline per year and all of this demand is decreasing in our tanking economy. G/A means nothing to the gasoline makers. I don't even know why they bother with 100 LL. I understand that of the 400+ refineries in the US, less than 10 make 100 LL. None of this fuel product can go through pipelines so it is all delivered by railroad tanker, tanker truck or barge, the most expensive way to deliver fuel. Be advised that the AOPA percentage data is at least five years old and is probably really wrong now. Probably more than 80% of G/A can use unleaded gasoline, especially when you consider that all of the new LSA aircraft are certified for unleaded auto gas, 100% of them.

It may just be time to pull life support on the 100LL and see if that "intermediate blend" will fly. I bet it does and I bet the bureaucrats take a kicking until the regs get changed and Swift gets some help to fight its way out of the paper bag they are in.

No need to pull the plug. There is only one factory in the world that makes TEL and it isn't in the US. There are only two aging tankers that ply the seas to deliver that toxic crap and they are 30 years old. The company that makes TEL has seen constantly decreasing demand for the product worldwide and has said publicly that they figure they will be out of production in about three years and that statement was made a year ago.

I agree with you that if TEL disappears tomorrow and 100 LL starts disappearing, the 94 UL spec will be approved instantly and the refineries will start making it and at least the 70%+ of G/A will keep flying. But the problem with Swift-Fuel right now isn't the paperwork, yet, it is the ability to make product on a commercial scale economically. They will definitely get the support of FAA and the aviation industry at that point but it is not guaranteed that the product scales. Luckily there are others who believe in it too, there is another company working on it, http://www.virent.com/